Mayor kicks Marines out of the city

[tshadowchaser]

If a city goverment held an open vote on allowing the marines to be in the city or not I might aprove of the action taken by the mayor, however if the mayor acted on his own i disaprove. He may be a elected city official but should not the community as a whole have a say in the matter.

 

[michaeledward]

If a city goverment held an open vote on allowing the marines to be in the city or not I might aprove of the action taken by the mayor, however if the mayor acted on his own i disaprove. He may be a elected city official but should not the community as a whole have a say in the matter.

We call our system of government 'representative democracy'.

When the citizens elected the mayor, they said, in effect, we believe you are the person who's views most closely align with ours; we can't be involved in every decision the community needs to make, so you make them for us.

The whole community did, essentially, speak through his decision.

If the whole community disagrees with his decision, they will have the opportunity to correct his decision in the ballot box during the next election.


Believe me, I have been waiting for more than seven years to correct the decision my fellow citizens made with President Bush. Having to wait sucks; but it is how the system works.

 

[tshadowchaser]

True
I guess they could also call for a special election or ballot if enough people in the community where upset

 

[grydth]

I disagree for the most part. I think we are seeing the tip of a gleaming shitberg where the public is going to start turning the on the military at every turn. It happened in the 60s and 70s because we couldn't pay for the guns and butter of the Vietnam war and it helped to drive our country into recession. It's happening now because because of the same reasons, except its a whole lot worse financially.

Our leaders, for the most part, are unresponsive to democracy and people are getting sick and tired of paying 50 cents out of every tax dollar to support something they consider wasteful and dangerous. So, I can completely understand where this mayor is coming from. People are getting sick of this war, sick of this tax burden, and sick of no "leader" listening to what they've got to say.

Like I said before, the marines can find a new city with people that still support what they are doing...for now.

We are mostly in - respectful - disagreement.

I do not question your right to be against this war, or your right to protest via legitimate means. That may be via voting, posting here, letter writing or demonstrations. I do not question your right to be against the quality of leader we have - personally I don't much like or respect most politicians at most levels, on either side of the aisle.

Where I do continue to strongly dispute your position is on the point that it is legitimate to take it out on the troops. I really think you should re-examine that. These Marines had no part in deciding on this war, and taking it out on individual service members is just wrong.

While this Mayor's actions seem rooted in pique, inefficiency and a child like view of "playing war", I read your posts as saying that an intentional interference with combat training in time of war would be a legitimate form of protest. That endangers these men and womens' lives. To me, legitimate protest does not encompass giving aid and comfort to a despicable enemy.... and that's what interfering with combat training is doing.

I think you can be against the war without taking actions that endanger our service members and assist the enemy in killing them. I cannot see a person with your heartfelt values being in favor of our soldiers being killed.... but that's where your course of action takes us. Please rethink this!

 

[michaeledward]

These Marines had no part in deciding on this war, and taking it out on individual service members is just wrong.

Are there any branches of service where the service member does not have the ability to 're-up' their service over a five year period? I think the Navy has one line of duty where the initial committment is six years.

I believe this war is illegal and immoral.

Also, I believe that every soldier who might believe as I do, has had the opportunity to be honorably discharged from their service during the engagement of this war in Iraq; which is approaching five years, soon to begin its sixth year.

It is logical to conclude that the Marines had every opportunity to decide if they would continue to serve in the military at this time, and in this war.

 

[Ping898]

Also, I believe that every soldier who might believe as I do, has had the opportunity to be honorably discharged from their service during the engagement of this war in Iraq; which is approaching five years, soon to begin its sixth year.

It is logical to conclude that the Marines had every opportunity to decide if they would continue to serve in the military at this time, and in this war.

That is not completely true. I know of several people who tried to get out (not of the Marines but of the ARMY) and weren't allowed and last I heard 3 of them still haven't been allowed out and I know of at least two people, 1 who is the wife of a coworker, who have been called back after being out for a few years, and have not had the opportunity to leave yet and I know it has been a few years at least for her....

 

[Tez3]

If it had been British Royal Marines I could have understood it, towns visited by them are usually left with their maidens deflowered, the towns bars drunk dry and a lot of very satisfied women and unhappy men.
No not joking!
We have specially built areas specially for urban fighting called Fibuas (Fghting in in-built areas), out on the training ranges, we've had them for over 40 years. other service people volunteer to be the towns people and they can riot, use civil disobedience or whatever is necessary for training.
I think the British service personnel lead the way in urban fighting as we had so much practice in Northern Ireland.

 

[michaeledward]

That is not completely true. I know of several people who tried to get out (not of the Marines but of the ARMY) and weren't allowed and last I heard 3 of them still haven't been allowed out and I know of at least two people, 1 who is the wife of a coworker, who have been called back after being out for a few years, and have not had the opportunity to leave yet and I know it has been a few years at least for her....

I'ld love more information on the specific circumstances.

As far back as the Kerry Bush '04 election there were discussions about the 'Stop Loss' being a 'back door draft'. I think I have heard of of Four active / Four Reserve contracts in which those reservists back to active duty during their second four years. (Is that the ready-reserves?? - what were the initial motivators for the eight year contract??)

I would like to know how many active duty service persons there are currently serving who have not had the opportunity to disengage from the military since 3/20/03. I am guessing this is a tiny minority of those serving. Having actual information would certianly be better.

My daughter is currently dating a young man who completed four. Resigned as a reserve in a training program, and he may be called to active duty. But, he was able to complete a separation, and had to re-sign to his current position.

 

[arnisador]

You might try reading the basic article yourself before applying "ignorant" to somebody else.

I re-read it. I stand by my assessment. Your statement was that opposing training the U.S. military in Toledo, OH is the same as supporting Al-Qaeda. That's an ignorant statement.

One other thing....Personally, I think splitting quotes of a person to attack them is a sleazy practice. But with only a doctorate degree, guess I'm just not smart enough to appreciate it.

If I'm to be impressed by your doctoral degree ('doctorate' is a noun, and you require an adjective there), please post your credentials for judgment. I gather your doctorate was not in English.

 

[theletch1]

[playnice]Jeff Letchford[/playnice]

 

[grydth]

I re-read it. I stand by my assessment. Your statement was that opposing training the U.S. military in Toledo, OH is the same as supporting Al-Qaeda. That's an ignorant statement.



If I'm to be impressed by your doctoral degree ('doctorate' is a noun, and you require an adjective there), please post your credentials for judgment. I gather your doctorate was not in English.

As anyone can see, my statement was part of an omgoing - and respectful - debate with upnorthkyosa concerning forms of protest..... specifically his post #11. That debate will continue.

I am not going to waste time and space engaging in a personal insult duel, especially given the moderator's caution. Welcome to my Ignore List, and please add me to yours.

 

[Makalakumu]

We are mostly in - respectful - disagreement.

I do not question your right to be against this war, or your right to protest via legitimate means. That may be via voting, posting here, letter writing or demonstrations. I do not question your right to be against the quality of leader we have - personally I don't much like or respect most politicians at most levels, on either side of the aisle.

Where I do continue to strongly dispute your position is on the point that it is legitimate to take it out on the troops. I really think you should re-examine that. These Marines had no part in deciding on this war, and taking it out on individual service members is just wrong.

While this Mayor's actions seem rooted in pique, inefficiency and a child like view of "playing war", I read your posts as saying that an intentional interference with combat training in time of war would be a legitimate form of protest. That endangers these men and womens' lives. To me, legitimate protest does not encompass giving aid and comfort to a despicable enemy.... and that's what interfering with combat training is doing.

I think you can be against the war without taking actions that endanger our service members and assist the enemy in killing them. I cannot see a person with your heartfelt values being in favor of our soldiers being killed.... but that's where your course of action takes us. Please rethink this!

So, when is it okay to throw some bricks in the gears of this war machine?

I say this because people have voted, for the most part, against the war. We are still there.

People have protested peacefully. And have been shunted off to "free speech zones."

People all across the country have consistently spoken out about the war. They have gather numbers and marched. They have done all of the things that responsible citizens in an informed democracy should do and yet the war marches on.

As I said before, it seems as if our leaders and our system is completely unresponsive to the will of the people.

The megaphones keep blaring the telescreens are primed with slogans and the president tells us to go out and shop...

When is it okay? Is the military seriously going to send soldiers into battle without the training they need?

Grydth - I'm looking at a system that beginning to unravel. This mayor is just the tip of the iceberg that is bearing down the military industrial complex.

 

[grydth]

So, when is it okay to throw some bricks in the gears of this war machine?

I say this because people have voted, for the most part, against the war. We are still there.

People have protested peacefully. And have been shunted off to "free speech zones."

People all across the country have consistently spoken out about the war. They have gather numbers and marched. They have done all of the things that responsible citizens in an informed democracy should do and yet the war marches on.

As I said before, it seems as if our leaders and our system is completely unresponsive to the will of the people.

The megaphones keep blaring the telescreens are primed with slogans and the president tells us to go out and shop...

When is it okay? Is the military seriously going to send soldiers into battle without the training they need?

Grydth - I'm looking at a system that beginning to unravel. This mayor is just the tip of the iceberg that is bearing down the military industrial complex.

Keep in mind that when brick throwing at the ordinary guys:

A) You may be tossing one at a fellow Forum member like Andy Moynihan. Are you ready condone violence against even your fellows here?

B) The military is about much more than Iraq, always has been. Do you really want to hurt those people? Whenever Iraq ends, the lawful and central mission of the military - defending the USA - remains.

C) By attacking the foot soldiers you are bringing the civil war - that I have said I greatly fear - that much closer. I am surprised you place zero confidence in Obama.

D) Can not a man with your values and your training come up with a more refined, more focused and more legal form of protest?

E) Suppose you get violence in return.... is our society really better off with a common private and you dead, hospitalized or in jail?

F) However much you despise Bush and his warlords - do you really want to make common cause with an enemy of the nature of al-Qaeda? Have you kept track of their atrocities in Iraq?

G) What makes you feel that you would receive a positive response to violent tactics? To the contrary, I would expect the government to label you a terrorist and use your actions as an excuse to steal yet more of our freedom.

When you ask if the military would send troops into battle unprepared.... have not the liberal critics accused Bush of exactly that on multiple occasions? Please review a good military history of the 20th Century - - - our troops have been committed to action woefully unprepared in conflict after conflict, to the point of almost criminal negligence.

My question to you is whether it is legitimate protest to keep troops from being prepared? I feel it definitely is not.

 

[Makalakumu]

Keep in mind that when brick throwing at the ordinary guys:

A) You may be tossing one at a fellow Forum member like Andy Moynihan. Are you ready condone violence against even your fellows here?

B) The military is about much more than Iraq, always has been. Do you really want to hurt those people? Whenever Iraq ends, the lawful and central mission of the military - defending the USA - remains.

C) By attacking the foot soldiers you are bringing the civil war - that I have said I greatly fear - that much closer. I am surprised you place zero confidence in Obama.

D) Can not a man with your values and your training come up with a more refined, more focused and more legal form of protest?

E) Suppose you get violence in return.... is our society really better off with a common private and you dead, hospitalized or in jail?

F) However much you despise Bush and his warlords - do you really want to make common cause with an enemy of the nature of al-Qaeda? Have you kept track of their atrocities in Iraq?

G) What makes you feel that you would receive a positive response to violent tactics? To the contrary, I would expect the government to label you a terrorist and use your actions as an excuse to steal yet more of our freedom.

When you ask if the military would send troops into battle unprepared.... have not the liberal critics accused Bush of exactly that on multiple occasions? Please review a good military history of the 20th Century - - - our troops have been committed to action woefully unprepared in conflict after conflict, to the point of almost criminal negligence.

My question to you is whether it is legitimate protest to keep troops from being prepared? I feel it definitely is not.

All of this is such a catch 22. You make a lot of valid points. But as a fellow countryman who is seriously concerned about the health and well being of my home, concerned enough to consider moving my family if the outlook doesn't get better, I feel very strongly that we need to do everything we can to oppose this war. We need to vote for people who will end it. We need to protest and make our voices heard. We need to stop aiding a system that sucks up our children and spits them into the places the elite wants them in order to grease their money wheels with blood.

Grydth, my children are 6 and 3. They are not at the point where they could be pulled into this system. Yet, I am afraid that I somehow do not make a stand or do something to pull my family out of this system, I risk having the government pull them into the war machine. Our leaders have told us to expect war for the rest of our lives. We are being prepped with slogans and other propaganda to sustain a multigenerational conflict...for what?

I have no fear of UBL or any of his CIA contrived thugs. None what so ever. I am more afraid of getting in my car and driving to work then I am of them. So, what am I risking my children for?

The truth is not something anyone wants to face in this country. We have created a monster where private corporations bleed off our hard earned income and have created a market for...war.

Think about that for a minute. Think about how sick and disgusting that is. People are making billions of dollars off of bogus wars from money that is forcibly taken from us and our children, if they don't pay with their lives, they pay with their standard of living.

This some seems especially appropriate now...

With all of this at stake, is amazing that more people are not out on the street and tossing bricks into this war machine. Your enumerated list is chilling...

I post it now as a repose to some of the thoughts that I have shared...

A) You may be tossing one at a fellow Forum member like Andy Moynihan. Are you ready condone violence against even your fellows here?

B) The military is about much more than Iraq, always has been. Do you really want to hurt those people? Whenever Iraq ends, the lawful and central mission of the military - defending the USA - remains.

C) By attacking the foot soldiers you are bringing the civil war - that I have said I greatly fear - that much closer. I am surprised you place zero confidence in Obama.

D) Can not a man with your values and your training come up with a more refined, more focused and more legal form of protest?

E) Suppose you get violence in return.... is our society really better off with a common private and you dead, hospitalized or in jail?

F) However much you despise Bush and his warlords - do you really want to make common cause with an enemy of the nature of al-Qaeda? Have you kept track of their atrocities in Iraq?

G) What makes you feel that you would receive a positive response to violent tactics? To the contrary, I would expect the government to label you a terrorist and use your actions as an excuse to steal yet more of our freedom.

All of these need to be weighed against what our future holds. Especially the last one that I have bolded. I cannot imagine anyone supporting any action this government does if they remotely believed that the bolded was a possibility. I am not intending to inflame. Only to provoke thought. Just think about the nature of the beast that we, as fellow citizens, are dealing with.

upnorthkyosa

ps - I would truth Obama more if were not such a panderer. That is my impression. He will not do damned thing to really change unless his rhetoric really gets serious.

 

[arnisador]

Is the military seriously going to send soldiers into battle without the training they need?

Well, this has been true not only of training but also of equipment. Remember earlier in the Iraq occupation when some troops refused to engage in transportation duties because of their inadequately armored vehicles?

Still, one must be realistic. While the "You go to war with the Army you have..." comment was poorly phrased, soldiers must be sent when they're (perceived to be) needed.

There was an interesting editorial in the WSJ not long ago about how turning Marines into an occupation force risks changing the very nature of their (expeditionary) force. It reinforces the idea that the main problem is using the U.S. military as a police force, an army of occupation.

Since we can hardly pull out immediately, more training must be done. Surely there's another site than Toledo, OH, though? Isn't there a NM site, associated with NM Tech? Surely any city has the right to decline to be used as a military base, and it's easy for me to imagine many reasons why they might do so: Concern over the effects on local traffic/business/image, concerns about damage the training might do, inadequate ability to police the area and keep civilians away, etc.

 

[Sukerkin]

Excellent post by Upnorth above (number 34). It lays out quite starkly what is happening in America at present. Note that I dont say "The West" because I believe that label linking Europe with the States is starting to fade as time goes by and the 'bad light' grows stronger over what is being done supposedly in the name of the democratic peoples.

The "Support our troops" slogan has been used many times in almost every discussion that touches on these matters along with such occaisional statements as "they're fighting for our freedom". That last particularly is errant nonsense and I find it hard to countenance that any educated adult would swallow it for a second. The former tho' is an emotive petard and really is being utilised as no more than a blunt instrument, in discoursive terms, to denigrate and disuade others from having a point of view that is not in line with 'party policy'.

It's a divisive and unhelpful approach when trying to intelligently talk about world events, especially ones that endanger the fragile balance of power and tenuous 'peace' with the non-western nations.

Against the Soviet Union, the stance was to look big and fierce (for which we had to have lots of high-tech kit) and talk fierce to prevent a shooting war (whether that was ever on the cards or not is a whole other argument).

With the fall of that Ominous Threat, another had to be found to fuel the military machine. What stance can be taken to maintain a sense of threat? The Shadowy Hand of Terrorism makes a perfect lever for such machinations as it's never going to be 'defeated' but target nations can be picked and invaded for plunder under it's banner.

I'm aware that this is not really directly related to the OP but it's this kind of background that needs to be brought out in to the open and acknowledged if sense is to be made of the actions of people such as the Mayor refusing to allow American troops to train in urban tactics in his city.

 

[grydth]

All of this is such a catch 22. You make a lot of valid points. But as a fellow countryman who is seriously concerned about the health and well being of my home, concerned enough to consider moving my family if the outlook doesn't get better, I feel very strongly that we need to do everything we can to oppose this war. We need to vote for people who will end it. We need to protest and make our voices heard. We need to stop aiding a system that sucks up our children and spits them into the places the elite wants them in order to grease their money wheels with blood.

Grydth, my children are 6 and 3. They are not at the point where they could be pulled into this system. Yet, I am afraid that I somehow do not make a stand or do something to pull my family out of this system, I risk having the government pull them into the war machine. Our leaders have told us to expect war for the rest of our lives. We are being prepped with slogans and other propaganda to sustain a multigenerational conflict...for what?

I have no fear of UBL or any of his CIA contrived thugs. None what so ever. I am more afraid of getting in my car and driving to work then I am of them. So, what am I risking my children for?

The truth is not something anyone wants to face in this country. We have created a monster where private corporations bleed off our hard earned income and have created a market for...war.

Think about that for a minute. Think about how sick and disgusting that is. People are making billions of dollars off of bogus wars from money that is forcibly taken from us and our children, if they don't pay with their lives, they pay with their standard of living.

This some seems especially appropriate now...

With all of this at stake, is amazing that more people are not out on the street and tossing bricks into this war machine. Your enumerated list is chilling...

I post it now as a repose to some of the thoughts that I have shared...



All of these need to be weighed against what our future holds. Especially the last one that I have bolded. I cannot imagine anyone supporting any action this government does if they remotely believed that the bolded was a possibility. I am not intending to inflame. Only to provoke thought. Just think about the nature of the beast that we, as fellow citizens, are dealing with.

upnorthkyosa

ps - I would truth Obama more if were not such a panderer. That is my impression. He will not do damned thing to really change unless his rhetoric really gets serious.

I have no doubt of your good faith and sincere beliefs.... I do question strongly the actions and motivations of the mayor in question.

We have 4 children, 2 of them boys at draft age and 2 of them girls of an age to be murdered by the ilk who produced 9/11. I don't know of any country where either of us could safely relocate our families. I'd be curious what places you are considering...

While the USA gets a lot of outside criticism, most of it comes from those whose governments have badly soiled drawers of their own. I frankly don't see many other places where I'd ever want to live or where individual freedom is not in steep decline.

I have no disagreement with the assertion that war profiteering is occuring at a sickening rate, and I would add that those corporations appear to have bought most of our politicians via "contributions". But the troops didn't ask for this war and they aren't the ones making millions off it. These men and women have kids just like we do, and many worry if they will see them again. I challenge the notion that actions targeting soldiers are appropriate where the villains you cite are private corporations. Why not protest them?

Protesting via "everything we can" can lead you to cross some lines you may not wish to. I do not see that disrupting military training in time of war is ever the right thing to do. A return to treating soldiers as per late Viet Nam will only hasten either civil war or the completion of our devolution into a police state.... maybe one after the other.

 

[Sukerkin]

The only thing I'd disagree with in your very well reasoned post above, Grydth, is the "time of war" inference.

We may be dealing with different definitions of 'war' here, for the manufactured threat is not of the same ilk as the wars of the mid-20th century nor the Cold War that I grew up in the shadow of.

The Terrorist Threat is a hollow one, at a national level, for all the individual fear and harm it can cause. Do you ever see the flea-bite attacks these groups can mount really changing anything for the better for them? Yes, I agree that those assaults are anything but minor for those who fall under their auspices but they are not going to change anything of significance (as governments measure these things).

The most hackneyed and common definition of war is the extension of foreign policy by aggressive means. In this case, those carrying out the extension of foreign policy are not the 'terrorists' and it is not a war carried out for purposes of defence of borders. It's a smoke screen (and a thin one at that) for the fundamental basis of many conflicts throughout history i.e. the control of resources. Religions been a popular choice for excusing bloodshed too but in this case the 'faith' is purely monetary.

Given the line I've walked in this thread (and others) it may be a surprise to find that I don't necessarily disagree with governments using (what should be) the final resort when it comes to survival. As oil is absolutely necessary, at present, for technological society to continue then, if no reasonable way of obtaining it existed, armed conflict would be the only other option.

What has happened here tho' is that greed and impatience on the part of those in postions of political and financial power have precipitated events that did not need to have happened.

That is why I can see a minor politician taking the most public and discussion provoking way he could to raise a hand of objection to what is being done in the name of people who largely do not want it to be done.

Of course, it is entirely possible that it is a self-serving act, I take your point on that - but the underlying issues still need to be addressed. Lives are being snuffed out to line the coffers of those who are in no danger from the conflict.

 

[grydth]

Okay, let's then examine the limits of dissent and protest.

For this debate purpose only, let's say the war in Iraq is illicit, that corporations are making a killing financially and that said corporations have bought many politicians.....

Through no fault of your own, you probably were not in the USA to see how returning Viet Nam vets were treated. But I was. A number of those men were friends of mine and what was done to them was despicable and unpardonable. The disgrace has never been made good, and a number of embarrased people like myself concluded. "Never again.... if I see soldiers treated that way now, I'll do something about it." <Oddly enough, I, a Cold War vet of the 1980s
have always been treated wonderfully, and I am no hero. Go figure. >

If people have a bone with war profiteering corporations and their wholly owned politicians... why not take it out on them? Why not divest/ Why not protest? Why not kick them out of town?

I view actions taken against the troops themselves as just wrong. They didn't decide to start this and a good many of them have families of their own.

Don't forget, as I have said, the military performs a much wider and greater mission than Iraq. Training in urban combat has been seen as a general requirement for some time now - even I had a primitive type of it in the 1980's. When a grandstanding politician acts only at the last minute to prevent such training, he's only helping any enemy these Marines may face. That's just wrong. For this mayor to pompously - and IGNORANTLY - refer to "playing war" when soldiers are dying in urban combat every day is grotesque.

 

[Makalakumu]

I've protested the war several times since it has started and it is always an interesting experience. Once, even, I found myself shunted into a "free speech" zone surrounded by a fence with a net over our head that was so low that we couldn't hold up our signs. We were told by the police that if we tampered with any of the barriers, which included touching them with our signs, we would be arrested. Further, this "zone" was located about as far from the location we were protesting and was actually positioned out of the line of sight that they people we wanted to see it.

This is the state in which dissenting discourse in our country has been reduced. This paltry farce of free speech. How can the people who disagree ever hope to get their voice out into the public when the people that run the show can pull the strings and mechanize the police, the media, and local officials (with promises of increased aid) against it?

What other choices are available for people who are really passionate about stopping this ill-begotten and wasteful war? I don't want to put other people in danger, but I can't see any other way then sheer civil disobedience. I would say that a mass anti-tax movement would work better (Ron Paul). Or maybe a total ban on recruitment in a city or town or school. Anything legal that is going to make it more difficult to propagate this war probably needs to be considered.

What other recourse is there when all other methods are so effectively checkmated? As you have said, soldiers are our children, why should we give any aid to a cause that will get them killed for no benefit for America? Is being against the war and supporting the actions of our military tacit complicity in the war?

I can see the government really liking this hence the slogan "I am against this war, but I support our troops."

There is no easy way to deal with any of this. Everyone loses something, but who loses more? If our country collapses because we failed to stop this war, doesn't that defeat the very oath the soldier takes?